File 72 - Selim Sadak/Selim Sadak and others/Sırrı Sakık and others

18 items

Materials (including applications, observations, and correspondence) pertaining to:
a) Six applications filed on 11 March 1994 against the Republic of Turkey with the European Commission of Human Rights (application numbers 23878/94 to 23883/94, later given European Court of Human Rights case number 87/1996/706/898-903) by six former members (or ‘deputies’) of the Turkish Grand National Assembly (Sırrı Sakık, Ahmet Türk, Mahmut Alınak, Leyla Zana, Mehmet Hatip Dicle and Orhan Doğan; known as ‘Sakık and others’) who represented the Democracy Party (DEP) regarding their arrest and detention in police custody and prosecution in a national security court while sitting as members of the Assembly;
b) Two applications filed on 23 August 1994 (25142/94) and 16 December 1994 (27099/95, referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Case 145 and assigned to Kevin Boyle as lead) by another DEP member of the Assembly, Selim Sadak, who alleged in particular that the duration and conditions of his custody ordered in the context of the criminal proceedings brought against him before the State Security Court of Ankara were contrary to the requirements of Article 3 and Article 5 § 3 of the Convention;
c) Nine applications filed on 23 August 1994 (25144/94) and 16 December 1994 (numbers 26149/95 to 26154/95, 27100/95, and 27101/95, the second six of which were referred to internally within the Kurdish Litigation Project as Cases 138 through 143 and assigned to Kevin Boyle as lead) by 13 current and former deputies (Selim Sadak, Sedat Yurttaş, Mehmet Hatip Dicle, Sırrı Sakık, Orhan Doğan, Leyla Zana, Ahmet Türk, Nizamettin Toguç, Naif Güneş, Mahmut Kılınç, Zübeyir Aydar, Ali Yiğit, and Remzi Kartal; known as ‘Sadak and others’), who complained that they had been forced to vacate their parliamentary seats following the dissolution of the DEP by the Constitutional Court and alleged the violation of Articles 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11 of the Convention and Article 1 of Protocol No. 1.
The applicants were former members of the Turkish National Assembly who were elected at the general election of 20 October 1991. At that time, they were members of the People’s Labour Party (HEP) which was founded in June 1990 but proscribed and dissolved by the Constitutional Court on 14 August 1993 on account of what were held to be separatist activities. By that date the applicants had joined the DEP, which had been set up in the meantime.
Between 1991 and 1994, more than 50 HEP/DEP members were murdered. As a result, the party decided to withdraw from the municipal elections which were planned to take place on 27 March 1994. On 2 March 1994, the Turkish parliament lifted the immunity of two deputies from the DEP. Orhan Doğan and Hatip Dicle were detained. On 2 April 1994, a deadly attack on the Bazaar in Istanbul occurred for which the Turkish Government blamed the PKK and the DEP. In reaction to the attack, the Turkish Prime Minister Tansu Çiller deemed the DEP a cover for the PKK and called for end of a PKK presence in the Grand National Assembly of Turkey. The seven applicants were imprisoned, and the party was banned. On 8 August 1994, Orhan Doğan, Leyla Zana, Selim Sadak and Hatip Dicle were sentenced to 15 years in prison. They were released in June 2009 following a decision of Turkey's Appeal Court after Turkey experienced some pressure from the European Parliament, which asked for their release and condemned their imprisonment.
The DEP was succeeded by the People's Democracy Party (HADEP), established in May 1994.
On 22 March 2000, Kevin Boyle and Françoise Hampson withdrew as legal representatives in the six applications in which they had been participating as part of the Kurdish Litigation Project.
On 26 November 1997, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that there had been breaches of Articles 5 §§ 3, 4, and 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights regarding the Sakık and others case. Sakık, Türk, Alınak and Zana were each awarded 20,000 French francs in non-pecuniary damages, Dicle and Doğan were each awarded 30,000 French francs in non-pecuniary damages, and the applicants were collectively awarded 120,000 French francs in legal costs and expenses. On 11 June 2002, the Court ruled that there had been a violation of Article 3 of Protocol No. 1 regarding the Sadak and others case. Each applicant was awarded €50,000 in damages and the applicants were collectively awarded €19,500 in legal costs and expenses. On 8 March 2004, the Court ruled that there had been a breach of Article 5 § 3 regarding the Sadak case. Selim Sadak was awarded €4,000 in moral damages and €3,000 in costs and expenses.
The full judgment in Sakık and others is available at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-58117
The full judgment in Sadak is available at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-66257
The full judgment in Sadak and others is available at https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/?i=001-60498
Materials from the related case also involving the imprisoned DEP deputies (Case of Dicle for the Democratic Party (DEP) of Turkey v. Turkey) can be found at A44/43/6/27.

Certain materials created by the Commission or the Turkish Government, including correspondence from the Commission, and the Government’s observations on the applications submitted to the Commission, are closed to access until 1 November 2073.

• Béarla

• Fraincis